Patel (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1911

Patel (Migration) [2021] AATA 1911 (7 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Aks Yogesh Kumar Patel

CASE NUMBER:  2103119

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2020/2538093

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:7 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 07 May 2021 at 3:40pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) visa – prescribed fee – fee reduction application refused – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 4.10, 4.13

CASES
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364
Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 19 February 2021, to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 11 March 2021. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.347(1) of the Act and r.4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, this application had to be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, as specified in s.347(1)(b) and r.4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under r.4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 12 March 2021. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. In this case before the prescribed period expired, the applicant paid half of the prescribed fee and asked the Tribunal to reduce the prescribed application fee by 50 per cent. An authorised officer decided to refuse the request and the applicant was advised of this decision by letter dated 14 April 2021. The applicant was asked to pay the remaining application fee within 14 days of receiving the Tribunal’s letter: by 28 April 2021. The applicant has not paid the fee nor contacted the Tribunal in relation to the outstanding fee.

5. The Tribunal considers the applicant has been given a reasonable period to pay the remainder of the fee since being notified of the authorised officer’s decision; however, the remainder of the fee has not been paid. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Nicole Burns
   Member